Lets put Obama's current political climate into perspective.

[Writer]

The economy is a very large factor in whether parties stay in power. Recessions typically mean trouble for a party in power, whether that be the White House, the control of Congress, or both. The recessions of 1980 and 1994 spelled trouble for Democrats, and 1992 and 2008 spelled trouble for Republicans. The economy is an equal opportunity hater, yanking a bucket of muck onto the heads of whoever happens to be standing under the door at the moment.

The Great Recession is 'great' because it's worse than all of the other recessions combined since WW2. Not since the 1930's has the US seen wealth and wages drop over a 10 year period, and no immediate relief is in sight for the roughly 10% unemployed in the country. Better times are coming, but not quite yet.

Despite this, Obama still stands at roughly a 45-50% approval rating. This is in comparison to Bush I and II's 30-40% approval before each left office. Instead of predicting a huge gain and transfer of control from Democrats to Republicans as occurred in 1994, a Republican victory is tenuous at best. They likely will not take control of the Senate. They - maybe - will take control of the House. (I predict they won't capture either chamber). Yes, Republicans will gain seats - but the huge swing a la Gingrich predicted earlier this year from some political pundits doesn't seem likely. In fact, it's shockingly unlikely.

So why hasn't the Great Recession destroyed the Democrats as weaker recessions have done to the party in power in past election cycles? What is the 'X' factor? I'm not sure, but I can guess that much of this has to do with the fact that Obama hasn't blown sunshine up the asses of the American electorate when discussing the economy. If a jobs report looks dour, he says as much. If he sees progress in the economy, he continues to say as much while keeping in mind that the middle class still suffers. He is a sober assessor, a realist, who avoids the pretense of glowing prognostication.

Democrats have a tendency - an annoying tendency - to draw specious parallels between Obama and their favorite Democratic presidents of the past. FDR! JFK! LBJ! Wrong. If anyone wants to make a comparison, the closest comparison I see, given the economic issues and the health of Obama's poll numbers, is Ronald Reagan. Yes, his situation most reflects the historical factors surrounding The Gipper. In fact, Obama's poll numbers are healthier than Reagan's were at this time of Reagan's presidency.

So what does this means for Democrats? Heck, for liberalism? As Reagan's presidency followed the perceived failure of the social welfare programs of the New Deal and the Great Society, Obama's presidency followed the failure of neo-liberal capitalism. In essence, Obama's election is only the beginning of a political swing back to the left. For those who hem, haw, and complain about conservative Democrats from conservative districts mucking up the water for liberal initiatives, understand that they are a product of a past era.

OBAMA is the new era. However our noses are so buried into the minutia of this election cycle, we have yet to lift our heads to notice the larger cultural change afoot. Lift your heads. Look around. Enjoy the change.

[andym]

1. Reagan marked the move toward the idea that "Government is the problem"

The idea has dominated since then. Obama has made moves to get the government more involved in maintaining the economy, health care, corporate regulation, etc. If the economy improves enough in the net two years, there is a good chance that this will revalidate the idea of the importance of government, that the government can be benevolent and efficient. That idea is the enabler and prerequisite to get real progressive change like single-payer health care. Until that paradigm shift occurs, strong progressive programs will remain pipe dreams. It goes hand in hand that complete "freedom" (from government, i.e., no corporate regulations etc), an idea that is owned by conservatives, is actually destabilizing and dangerous. For freedom to be actually maximized for all, there has to be a working set of rules to keep everyone honest and prevent a few elite from eliminating opportunity.